2022 (2) TMI 773

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,61,52,564/- made by the AO, u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS on guarantee/fee commission paid to bank relying upon the notification no 56/2012 (F. No 275/53/202-IT(B) dated 31.12.2012 as the provisions of the same are not applicable to the prior period of notification. 3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred, when the AO himself gave effect to the said notification vide order u/s 154 of the IT Act dated 06.05.2016 on the request of the assessee itself, for the period falling under the purview of the notification and reduced the addition u/s 40(a)(ia) to the tune of Rs. 95,68,829/-. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or fore....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mission/bank guarantee commission on the transactions made by a person with the bank listed in the second schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 excluding a foreign bank. Further, relying upon certain judicial precedents, including, the decision of the Tribunal in case of Kotak Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2012] 18 taxmann.com 48 (Mum.), learned Commissioner (Appeals) ultimately held that there is no requirement to deduct tax at source on payment of bank guarantee commission to a Bank listed in the second schedule of Reserve Bank of India, 1934 excluding a foreign bank. Thus, he deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 5. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, ....